United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause came before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Amended
Motion for Default Judgment . Having reviewed
Plaintiff's submissions and the relevant legal
authorities, and otherwise being fully advised in the
premises, the Court finds the motion well taken and it shall
be granted in part.
Defendant failed to answer or otherwise appear after being
duly served, the Plaintiff moved for entry of a default,
which the Clerk entered on July 15, 2019 . Plaintiff then
moved for default judgment, which was later amended on
October 11, 2019 . Finding that the Complaint provided a
sufficient basis for the relief sought against the Defendant,
the Court found that entitlement for a default judgment in
the amount of $823, 231.87 was warranted and granted the
motion to such extent . However, the Court found the
motion deficient as to any other relief sought and allowed
Plaintiff thirty-days to amend/supplement the motion on the
issues of accrued interest, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys' fees. . On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment ,
which, through various affidavits, appears to supply the
information needed for a Final Default Judgment to be
first Order, the Court found that the $823, 231.87
representing the principal debt at issue was due to be
awarded. The affidavit of May Mei submitted in support of
this latest motion clarifies that this principal amount
includes all overdue rent, operating expenses (recoverable
under the Lease), and late fees and that there has been no
“interest” charged to date on the amount due.
[14-3] at ¶¶ 4, 10. Plaintiff now seeks additional
amounts in the judgment, including prejudgment interest at a
rate of 8% per annum from the date the Complaint was filed to
the date of the judgment, as well as post-judgment interest
per 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), and attorneys' fees and
costs. The Court will address each in turn.
diversity cases such as this, “state law generally
controls the award of interest.” TLS Mgmt. &
Mktg. Svcs., LLC v. Mardis Fin. Svcs., Inc., 2018 WL
3698919, at *10 (S.D.Miss. 2018) (quoting Plantation Key
Developers, Inc. v. Colonial Mortg. Co. of Indiana, 589
F.3d 164, 170 (5th Cir. 1979)). Mississippi law requires
“that a party assert a demand for prejudgment interest
in the appropriate pleading.” Id. (citing
Upchurch Plumbing, Inc. v. Greenwood Util.
Comm'n, 964 So.2d 1100, 1118 (Miss. 2007). Plaintiff
requested prejudgment interest in its Complaint.  at p. 5.
Thus, the Court finds that prejudgment interest is
rate of prejudgment interest is within the Court's broad
discretion.” Economy Stone Midstream Fuel, LLC v.
Thompson, 2009 WL 3297789 at *2 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 13,
2009). In Mississippi, federal courts have relied on Miss.
Code Ann. §75-17-1, which states that “[t]he legal
rate of interest on all . . . contracts shall be eight
percent (8%) per annum, calculated according to the actuarial
method . . . .” TLS Mgmt., 2018 WL 3698919 at
*11, Such rate of interest has been held appropriate. See
id.; Economy Stone, 2009 WL 3297789 at *2.
Plaintiff requests that the prejudgment interest be
calculated from the date the suit was filed, May 24, 2019.
Thus, the Court finds that 8% interest awarded from May 24,
2019 to the date of this judgment is appropriate. See TLS
Mgmt., 2018 WL 3698919 at *11.
has not provided the Court precise calculations. Therefore,
the Court calculates the rate on the principal amount to
yield a daily rate of $180.43. That amount times the 179 days
from the date of filing to the date of the judgment to be
entered this date equals a total of $32, 296.97 in
also seeks post-judgment interest per 28 U.S.C. §
1961(a), which provides that “[i]nterest shall be
allowed on any money judgment . . . at a rate equal to the
weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System for the calendar week preceding the date of the
judgment.” The Court further finds post-judgment
interest appropriate in this amount allowed under federal
Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting this case. Plaintiff contends such fees are
recoverable under Mississippi law pursuant to an “open
account, ” as well as pursuant to Section 22 of the
Lease ([1-2] at p. 11). Plaintiff states that once the Court
enters final judgment against the ...